Convicted Defense Contractor Has Appeal Denied

Federal Judge Daniel H. Huyett 3rd has denied an appeal for both a judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial for convicted defense contract swindler Leo F. Schweitzer III of Macungie R.1.

Schweitzer was found guilty in July on 14 of 16 counts of mail fraud and lying to government officials as a parts contractor for the Department of Defense.

He is scheduled for sentencing at 9 a.m. Sept. 27 before Huyett in Reading.

In rebuffing Schweitzer's motions to be acquitted or be granted a new trial, Huyett concluded, "It is clear to me that the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to enable a jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

The criminal trial involved contracts from 1981 to 1983 with Schweitzer's Alchemy Inc. for three parts: One was a double-check valve to eject pilots in emergencies from F-4 fighter planes, and the others were a water fog nozzle and a 12-foot water applicator tube designed to fight fires on Navy ships.

The contracts totaled $447,000.

Schweitzer's Alchemy firm was located in four different places in the Upper Perkiomen Valley during the contract years.

Huyett wrote that the contract Schweitzer signed for double-check valves "was explicit in requiring that the valves be produced by an approved source. Alchemy was not an approved source.

"Nevertheless, the evidence revealed Schweitzer proceeded to manufacture the valves himself and to conceal this fact from the contract officers involved in the administration of the contract."

Testimony showed that Circle Seal, a California company, was the only approved source for the valve.

Schweitzer as a new government contractor offered to provide the Circle Seal valve quicker and cheaper than Circle Seal itself in delivering it to an Air Force base in the Rocky Mountains.

The government took Schweitzer's lower bid. The testimony showed that when Schweitzer failed to deliver the valves on time, he blamed Circle Seal for a supposedly delayed delivery.

But while government officials went back repeatedly to Schweitzer over the delays, they made no inquiries with Circle Seal itself.

Regarding the water fog nozzles, Huyett said the ones manufactured by Schweitzer were virtually worthless.

"Schweitzer claims the nozzles met the requirement of the contract because the contract itself only called for two tests to be performed and that the nozzles met these tests."

The judge said this argument is more than slightly insincere.

"Surely, although a contract does not specifically require that the handles of a nozzle not fall off, this can be understood from the nature of the item produced.

"Schweitzer argues that because the government accepted the first two shipments, he could reasonably believe that the rest of the nozzles were satisfactory.

"This argument is akin to saying that having pulled the wool over the government's eyes once, Schweitzer could reasonably believe that the government would never catch on."

Huyett said four counts pertained to false statements filed by Schweitzer over the water fog nozzle contracts.

"Schweitzer took it upon himself to modify the contract in a number of ways.

"For example, he added caulking and radiator sealant to the nozzles to prevent leakage when none was called for in the contract.

"He added grease to the balls in the nozzles to prevent the premature breakage of the plastic balls. This breakage itself was caused by Schweitzer's use of nonconforming plastic."

There were other issues, mostly technical, that Huyett dealt with in his 24-page opinion.

On a local matter, a Morning Call story of July 17 said Schweitzer was sought by District Justice John Zettlemoyer of Emmaus over an outstanding March 7 traffic charge, driving under a suspended or revoked license.

A registered letter to Schweitzer on the charge came back unclaimed in April, Zettlemoyer said.

Yesterday, Zettlemoyer's office reported that Schweitzer had a hearing Aug. 14 and was assessed $500 fine and $19.60 costs.

He has not paid the fine and costs, the office said, noting he has 30 days to appeal - though he's made no indication that he intends to appeal.